So one (the only?) difference would be that the attributes belong to a certain entity like a function or class?   -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:Siddharth Mohanty via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> Gesendet:Di 24.06.2025 11:15 Betreff:[std-proposals] Standardizing Code Documentation An:std-proposals_at_[hidden]; CC:Siddharth Mohanty <neosiddharth_at_[hidden]>; I was thinking about how C++ handles documentation. We currently rely on comment-parsing, but this is flawed since comments aren't a checked part of the language and can easily become inaccurate. I'm imagining a simple attribute, maybe [[doc]], that would let the compiler and static-analyzers see and understand documentation. This could lead to much tighter integration with IDEs and better static analysis. This would be reminiscent of the existing [[deprecated]] attribute but instead of a warning, it would be purely informational. We could even have a syntax like the example below to formalize our conventional doc comments: [[doc(R" @brief This function allocates memory on the heap. @param bytes The number of bytes to allocate. @return A pointer to the heap or nullptr in case of exception. ")]] void *malloc(size_t bytes); I'd appreciate feedback on whether this is a good enough idea to turn into a proposal. Regards, Siddharth Mohanty -- Std-Proposals mailing list Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals